...is corrupt.
Governor Andrew Cuomo's Moreland Commission on Public Corruption is mandated to investigate all evidence brought to their attention regarding corruption by any public official, in any branch of government.
But the Commission has violated it's mandate, by ignoring and suppressing evidence regarding their own friends and associates, including Governor Cuomo and Attorney General Schneiderman, among others.
MORELAND COMMISSION NOW UNDER INVESTIGATION BY US ATTORNEY PREET BHARAA

restoring trust

Friday, July 25, 2014

THE
MORELAND COMMISSION EXPOSED

By Will Galison

Part
1: Did Governor Cuomo’s “Moreland Commission to Investigate
Public Corruption” Illegally Alter the Transcript of Witness
Testimony to Protect Its Friends and Colleagues?

On
December 3rd,
Moreland Commissioner Joanne
Mahonie made a bombshell confession to Capitol Tonight host Liz Benjamin : "I think [the
Moreland Commission} is
making a mockery of this whole process if we try to pretend that a
group of us that's been appointed by the attorney general and the
governor is investigating the attorney general or the governor."The statement
was extraordinarybecause the Commission to Investigate
Public Corruption is officially mandated to expose, investigate and
prosecute corruption in every branch and at every level of New
York's Government, including the Governor and the Attorney General.

If the Commission is not willing to investigate anyone and everyone
about whom they receive allegations of corruption, they are violating
their mandate, and the law. Whether Ms. Mahonie's confession was
motivated by conscience or naiveté, it supports what many believe;
that the Commission is using its vast powers to pursue only selected
political targets while taking extraordinary,
illicit measures to protect those with personal, professional
and political ties to itself. How else to explain the apparent
“sanitization” of testimony submitted by public witnesses -
essentially erasing any mention of the potentially favored parties
from the official record?

The formation of the Commission was Governor Cuomo's direct
response to the legislature’s rejection of his anti-corruption
“Clean Up Albany” bill, and he vowed that the Commission would be
even tougher than the bill in routing out corruption in every corner
of New York Government: “I
said to the legislature right up front... if you don't pass the Clean
up Albany legislation...I'm going to appoint a Moreland Commission…
and THEY are going to clean up Albany”Cuomo:
Government Corruption a “Double Crime”

Governor
Cuomo also spoke of his particular disgust with crimes involving
public corruption, even in comparison to other crimes, stating
“public corruption is a double crime. It's the underlying crime
and then it's the crime of breaching the public trust, because when
you're an elected official…you say 'trust me, I'm here to serve
you'... so breaching that trust; violating that trust to me is a
separate and inexcusable offense.

Finally, the Governor
stressed that the sterling integrity and efficacy of the Commission
members would be a shining example to the public and politicians
alike, “The Commission will vindicate good elected officials to
the extent that they are now being tarnished by the implication of
the wrongdoing of the few… I believe there has never been a more
credible group of law enforcement officials assembled in this state.”

Governor
Cuomo could not have been more effusive in his praise of the
Commission members: “I’m going to put together a group of the
best and brightest law enforcement officials you have ever seen
assembled, period, in the state of New York. “The blue ribbon
commission …the all-stars,… a roster of who’s who in the law
enforcement community. … If this government has something to hide,
this group of people is going to find it and they're going to expose
it and that's what this is all about”.

These
Commissioners are the “Untouchables” of the New York Law
Enforcement, and their integrity- perceived or actual - is the
cornerstone of Cuomo's plan to clean up NY Government.

The
Role of the “Public” in the “Public Hearings”

One
aspect of the hearings that Governor Cuomo did not
address in his speeches introducing the Commission was the role of
witnesses from the public, but that role is clearly stated in
paragraph IX of his executive
order 106 that created the Commission: “The
Commission shall conduct public hearings around the State to provide
opportunities for members of the public and interested parties to
comment on the issues within the scope of its work.”

At
the first public hearing on Sept 17, 2013, Commission Chairman
William J. Fitzpatrick also emphasized the importance of input from
the public hearings in his speech, saying, “our first
task is to issue a report on or about December first of this
year...and the gist of this [public] hearing today is to assist us in
drafting and eventually writing that report..”

The
Attempt to Bar the “Public” From the “Public Hearings” of
September 17, 2013.

It
is now apparent that the public's role in the hearings, was and is a
very low priority to the Commission. The Commission made no effort to
announce and promote the hearings through media, and news outlets
such as WNYC, NY1 News, The New York Post, The Daily News, The New
York Times and The Village Voice all failed to mention them in
advance. The
Commission's website itself didn't even set up an RSVP system for
registrants until nearly a week before the first hearing.

Despite the media blackout, however, word spread among the
community of corruption victims around the state, who for years had
failed to find redress by existing oversight agencies. Many of these
victims heard about the hearings through The
Center for Judicial Accountability, (CJA) which notified its list
of members and followers. When the first Commission hearing was held
on September 17, 2013 about a hundred people gathered at the entrance
of Pace University in Lower Manhattan to testify.

The
excitement was palpable among the crowd that waited behind police
barricades for the opening of the hearings at 6:00 PM. But at about
5:45, Commission staffer Heather Green walked along the barricade,
asking the witnesses their names. In almost every case, she then
glanced at her clipboard, shook her head and announced,“I’m
sorry, you’re not on the list”. No explanation was given as to
why dozens of people who said
theyhad
registered, and in some case travelled hours to testify, were “not
on the list”, and the witnesses' frustration gave way to anger and
some near-altercations. Ominously, dozens
of NYPD officers were assigned to the scene, suggesting that the
Commission anticipated
public
outrage at being excluded from the “public hearing”.

Ultimately,
of the over one hundred witnesses that had gathered outside Pace
University, fewer than 20 were allowed into thearing, and
only 16 were ultimately allowed to testify. The majority of the seats
in the patently undersized hearing room were filled by reporters, and
the security details and staff of the invited speakers, who included
Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York;
Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York;
and Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the New York County District Attorney. When,
after speaking, those luminaries left the room with their entourages,
plenty of seats became available, but by that point the excluded
witnesses waiting outside had long since given up and left.

The
Politicians Speak; the Public Listens

Chairman Fitzpatrick
opened the hearing with a speech lauding the credentials of each of
the 25 Commissioners, followed by his statement of the Commission’s
intent: “The public frustration and anger with corruption has
reached the breaking point… We fully intend to complete [Cuomo’s]
vision of restoring the trust of the people in its own government”,
he declared. Vance, Bharara and other invitees also gave lengthy
speeches regarding their respective efforts against corruption.

The
“Public” Testifies about Judicial Corruption

After
listening to the politicians speak for over two hours, the members of
the public were finally allowed to testify, but were granted a mere
three minutes each and were threatened with forceful removal
if they spoke too long. If the Commission strove to limit the
public's participation because they feared people would raise
allegations of corruption among their peers, their fears were well
founded. The witnesses named names, and cited specific cases of
alleged government corruption that had devastated their lives, and
for which they said they could find no redress from any existing
oversight agencies in New York State. To the Commission's obvious
displeasure, nearly all of the witnesses complained of systemic
corruption in the Judiciary; the branch of Government that New
York StateAttorney General Schneiderman hasclaimed
could “police itself”. Somemembers of the public who
testifiedalso implicated the architects
of the Commission itself, Governor Cuomo, and Schneiderman:

Elena
Sassower of the Center for
Judicial Accountability, spoke of the CJA's
lawsuit against NY State charging that the recent pay raises for
Judges (and District Attorneys) were illegal and unconstitutional and
naming Cuomo, Schneiderman and Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman as
defendants, among others. She also criticized the Commission for
allowing conflicts of interest among its members.

Margarita
Walter detailed how she lost custody of her three children and
all of her assets through “a
pretextual conspiratorial scheme of case fixing in the New York Court
System”.
She explained that she had taken her case to every appropriate
authority in New York State, including Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman,
the Commission on Judicial Conduct, Governor Cuomo and Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman, but that she had been ignored.

Several
witnesses also submitted copious written documentation in support of
their complaints. Ms. Sassower submitted a stack of legal briefs
several inches high, documenting the Center for Judicial
Accountability’s lawsuit
against Cuomo, Schneiderman and Lippman among others. I submitted
the complaint against Chief
Judge Jonathan Lippman filed with Preet Bharara, and a letter
to Ray Kelly from the Blackstar News, demanding an investigation
into the highly suspicious death of Sunny Sheu - neither of which had
been responded to.

The
Commission “Disappears” The Public's Written Testimony and
Evidence

The
Moreland Commission’s website, in it’s “Public Comments/
Testimony section, originally included the statement: “All
written testimony submitted will be included on the record of the
proceedings”,
but after the testimonies of September 17, every mention of that
extremely important provision has been expunged from the website.

As
of this writing- over two months after the hearing- not one
word of the written testimony has yet been published.
Effectively, all the written testimony and evidence that was
submitted to the Commission is being withheld from the public. Or has it simply been shredded,
like the evidence
presented to the JNC of alleged crimes by Jonathan Lippman?What is certain is that none of the evidence of alleged corruption against Cuomo, Schneiderman and many other public officials submitted by the public witnesses was mentioned in the official Commission report to Governor Cuomo on December 23, 2013.

And the only official “record of the proceedings” available to the
public is the stenographic transcript of the public hearings. That is
why the accuracy and integrity of the stenographic transcript is
crucial to any evaluation of the Commission's performance.

Did
The Commission Alter the Official Record?

The
suppression of the public's written testimony and evidence is
violative of the Commission's mandate and would appear to constitute
a deliberate cover-up of the alleged crimes and corruption reported
in those documents.But
even more troubling is what appears - unless the Commission provides
an alternative explanation- to be the Commission's deliberate
alteration
of the
transcript of witness testimony at the September 17 hearing,
which is the only public record of the Commission's hearings.

It
is clearly evident that the “transcript” of the witness's
testimony posted by the Commission differs substantially from the
actual testimony clearly audible on the video
of the hearing, in ways that cannot be the result of mere
“stenographic errors”.

Moreover,
the Commission published the clearly inaccurate and apparently
altered transcript on the Internet, and misrepresented it as the
original, unaltered transcript of the hearings, including this signed
certification attached by the stenographer, Stefanie Krut, of Precise
Court Reporting:

CERTIFICATION; I, STEFANIE KRUT, a
Notary Public in and for the State of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my
stenographic notes.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of

September
2013.

Stefanie
Krut

---------------------------------

STEFANIE
KRUT, PRECISE COURT REPORTING

Is
Stefanie Krut the Most Inaccurate Stenographer in the World?…

The
sheer number of errors- including misspellings and omissions of key
names and institutions in the published transcript is shocking. But
more alarming is the apparently deliberate pattern underlying the
“errors”. Virtually all of the misspelled names areof people and institutions associated with complaints
against the judiciary, many of whom have direct ties to the
Commission. For example:

As
stunning as are the number and nature of “errors” in the
transcript of the public's testimony, even more incredible is the
accuracy of the transcript of the testimony of the Commission members
and invited guest speakers, including US Attorney Preet Bharara and
District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.

Whereas there are over
70 errors in the 122 lines of transcription of my
testimony, there are only five
in the 152 lines of Mr. Bharara’s testimony. In the nearly 500
lines of testimony of Chairman Fitzpatrick, there are zero
substantive errors.

If the transcript was not
altered, Ms. Krut is – occasionally-
a speller with a nearly paranormal ability to discern between the
various spellings of names that sound identical. For example, Ms.
Krut recorded the name of the law firmVladeck,
Waldman, Elias and Engelhardwith perfect spelling, despite the rare variations in the names’
spellings. According to a search the Whitepages.com website, there
are at least four different spellings of the name pronounced
“vladuk”, including “Vladic”, “Vladick”, and “Vladich”,
and the spelling “Vladeck” occurs inonly
one
case in ten.
How could Ms. Krut know which was the correct spelling?

-Likewise,
the name “Engelhard” is seven times less common than its homonym
“Engelhardt”, but Ms. Krut made the distinction.

-The
name that sounds like “Chamberlain” in the video is 20 times more
likely to be spelled “Chamberlain” than “Chamberland”, but
Ms. Krut nailed it.

-
The name “Deringer”, as in “Freshfields, Bruckhaus &
Deringer”, is three times more likely to be spelled with two “r”s
than one, but Ms. Krut can apparently hear the difference.

In
fact, Ms. Krut spelled perfectly every single proper name -
approximately 50 different ones - uttered by Commission
ChairmanMr. Fitzpatrick in his introductory
remarks.

But
does the discrepancy between the impeccable accuracy of the
transcript of the government officials' testimony and the butchering
of the public witnesses' testimony conclusively prove that the
transcript was intentionally altered? Could it not be that
after two and a half hours of flawlessly recording the politician’s
speeches, Stenographer Krut simply became too exhausted to accurately
transcribe?

This
is a critical question because, if true, the allegation that some
member or members of the Commission tampered with the
transcripts would mean that the “most credible, blue ribbon,
who's who of New York law enforcement” may itself be guilty of
corruption, crimes and conspiracy. As Carl Sagan put it;
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

The
Extraordinary Evidence:As it turns out, there is at least
one feature of the transcript that the Commission cannot say was a
mere “stenographer's error”. It occurred during Chairman
Fitzpatrick's introduction
of the Commission members and their accomplishments, as he introduced
Commissioner Makau Mutua.

Here
is what Fitzpatrick clearly says on the video at 7 minutes and 47
seconds:

“Dean Makau Mutua is the Dean of the SUNY Buffalo
Law School. He is also the SUNY Distinguished Professor and the Floyd
Hilda Hurst Faculty Scholar at SUNY Buffalo. Dean Mutua came to
us from Nairobi where he attended the University of Dar-es-Salaam,
and Nairobi's loss, believe me, was America's gain. He is also a
graduate of Harvard Law School”.

The transcript is subtly
different however. At line 4 of page 7 Fitzpatrick states:

4
Dean Makau Mutua is the Dean of the SUNY Buffalo Law

5
School. He is also the SUNY Distinguished Professor and the

6
Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar at SUNY Buffalo. Dean Mutua

7
came to us from Nairobi where he attended the University of

8
Dar-es-Salaam, and Nairobi's loss, believe me, was America's

9
gain. He is also a graduate of Harvard Law School.

Notice
the differences? For one thing, Ms. Krut's transcription leaves out
the name “Floyd”, from the phrase “Floyd Hilda Hurst Faculty
Scholar”- which is spoken on the video. Of course, even the
best stenographers occasionally miss a word or two, and the omission
of “Floyd” from “Floyd Hilda Hurst” may seem like a trivial
error.

But look closer; Ms. Krut also added something
to the transcript that was not spoken byFitzpatrick at
all. The transcript says “Hilda L. Hurst”, and Fitzpatrick
never uttered the initial “L” or anything that sounded
like it.

Could Ms. Krut have heard, between Fitzpatrick's
words “Hilda” and “Hurst”, some random noise in the
room that sounded to her like the initial “L”? If she did, it
would be one of the most amazing coincidences in history, because
DeanMutua Makuta is,
in fact, the “Floyd H. and Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar
at SUNY Buffalo”.

A
stenographer may omit and misspell words that are spoken at a
tribunal, but she cannot record information that she has no way of
knowing, if it is not spoken at all.

It
is simply not possible that Ms. Krut could have heard and typed the
initial “L” when it was never uttered at the hearing. Therefore,
the “L” in “Hilda L. Hurst” must have been placed in the
transcript after the hearing, and that seemingly trivial fact
has enormous ramifications.

If
the "L" was indeed placed “after the fact”, what
other alterations were might
have also been madeafter the fact?

Is
it Possible that the Transcript Were Altered Legally?

The protocol for making corrections in the
transcript is strict and well established. According to Harriet
Brenner Gettleman,
President of the New York Association of Court Reporters (NYACR); if
the entity that ordered the transcript (in this case the Moreland
Commission) wants corrections made in the transcript, it must
send the desired corrections to the stenographic company (in this
case Precise Court Reporting) that reported the hearing.

If
there is an electronic record (audio or audiovisual) of the hearing,
the original stenographer may check the transcript against the
record, and if the correction is warranted, may attach the
corrections as an erratum to the original transcript. She
cannot legally amend the original certified transcript.

But
according to Florence Seth, the owner of Precise Court Reporting, to
her knowledge the Moreland Commission never contacted Precise
Court Reporting or Ms Krut to request any changes in the transcripts.
Ms. Krut’s supervisor, Kelly Iacobella, emphatically confirmed this
to me, saying: “I can tell you straight up that they have not
[requested corrections]”.

And according to Ms. Seth, the
Commission could not have altered the transcript either legally or
technically; “The Moreland Commission cannot change [the
transcript] on their own…you just can’t change things like that,
this is a legal document that’s already been established…they
don’t have the software to change the transcript” she
said.

NYACR President Harriet Brenner Gettleman, concurred:
“The Court Reporter shouldn't have put the initial [“L”] in if
it wasn't said... she would have written whatever was said verbatim..
corrections would not have been made except through the agency...
they could not have [legally] sent [the corrections] directly to the
stenographer”. Since the transcript was never sent to
Precise Court Reporters for corrections, and since the Commission
does not have the software to alter the transcript,it appears that Ms. Krut created the transcript not solely
from her stenographic notes, as affirmed in her oath of
certification, but with input from an outside source.

This
would be strictly illegal. To knowingly alter a transcript that will
be used in an official procedure is not only a violation of Court
Reporter’s ethics; it is a felony under NY
Penal Code S 215.35
and to sign a false certification is perjury.

Why
Would the Commission Alter the Transcript Secretly and
Illegally?

The
Commissioners could have corrected the spelling mistakes easily and
legally
by simply asking Precise Court Reporting to make the requested
changes, so why didn't they do that?

Perhaps because if the
Commissioners had admitted
to reviewing and correcting the transcript legally,
they would be hard pressed to explain the dozens of uncorrected
errors in the public testimony portion that
still remain on the same transcript.
For example, how could they explain that they had not noticed the
misspelling of Chief Judge Lippman's name as “Littman” 13
times?

If,
on the other hand, someone
on the Commission saw
to it that the transcripts were altered secretly, illegally, and
selectively, that would allow them to introduce other changes
that might suit their agenda, such as the removal of their
colleagues' names from the record through selective misspellings and
omissions.

The
Significance of the Alterations

All else aside, the
alteration of the transcript from her original notes would mean that
Ms. Krut’s “certification” is fraudulent; the published
transcript isnot a“true and accurate transcript of [Krut’s] stenographic
notes”. It also means that the transcript was altered after the
hearing and before the Moreland Commission posted it as the
official record of the September 17 hearing weeks later.

How
an Altered Transcript Reversed the Conviction of a Child Molester

Altering
transcripts is not merelyan
"academic"
matter. The
potentially dire consequences of an altered transcript is illustrated
by the
case of convicted serial child molester Charles Kay. On June 11,
2012, the Omaha World-Herald reported that Kay, despite having been
found
guilty unanimously
by all 12 jurors, would get a new trial due entirely to stenographic
errors. According to that article, the stenographer submitted an
official record that listed thirteen jurors instead of twelve and
misrepresented the names of the defense and prosecution attorneys.
According to the article: “[This] has led court officials to
question whether [the stenographer] was taking down the exchanges as
they occurred, or whether she waited till later to insert jurors'
names from a court list”; precisely the question raised by the
apparent
alterations on the transcript of the September 17 Commission hearing.
If a faulty transcript can overturn the conviction of a serial child
molester, it can surely derail the prosecution of corrupt public
officials, so it is remarkable that the Moreland Commission refuses
to correct or even acknowledge the scores of clear “errors” in
its transcript.

Intentional
Alteration of the Transcripts Would Represent Felony Crimes.

If
indeed the transcript was altered by Ms. Krut at the request of an
individual or individuals on the Commission, this scenario would
represent much more than a violation of Commission Rules; it could
constitute commission of a number of of felonies under state and
federal law by a member or members of the Commission, including:

1)
S
215.40 Tampering
with physical evidence;
both for the suppression of witness testimony and for the alteration
of the transcript, which constitutes physical evidence under NY law.

2)
S
215.50Criminal
contempt in the second degree for “Knowingly
publishing a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court's
proceedings”

3)S
215.00Bribing
a witness,(if
Ms. Krut was influenced to alter the transcript):
“A
person is guilty of bribing a witness when he confers, or offers or
agrees to confer, any benefit upon a witness or a person about to be
called as a witness in any action or proceeding upon an agreement or
understanding that (a) the testimony of such witness will thereby be
influenced”4)
Federal
law 18 U.S.C. § 2541for
conspiracy to deprive the 14th
Amendment rights of the witnesses, for redress of grievances, among
other things. 5) Crimes
under Color of Law,
for all of the above in the responsible parties' official capacities
as deputized Attorney Generals. 6) NYS
Public Officers law §74,
for using “his
or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or
exemptions for himself or herself or others”

Who
Would Be Guilty?

If
indeed the transcript was altered, certainly any Commission members,
advisors, or staff who were involved should be prosecuted by federal
law enforcement. Ms. Krut would certainly be exposed to criminal
charges if she intentionally altered the transcript.

Altered
Transcript and Conflicts of Interest

If
members
of the Commission ordered
the alteration
of the transcripts to protect their
friends and colleagues from investigation, that would be essentially
an issue of “conflict of interest” which is defined by Nolo's
Legal Dictionary as: “a
real or apparent conflict between one's professional or official
duties and one's private interests”.

In this case, the
commissioners' “official duty” is to investigate any crime
brought to their attention, and their “private interest”, real or
apparent, is to protect their friends, associates and employers from
criminal liability.

The
significant conflicts of interests of the commissioners are too
numerous to address in this article and will be he subject of
separate article, but several were directly addressed in the
Center for Judicial Accountability’s August 5, 2013 letter to the
Commission: The letter, which has never been responded to, asks
the Commission to identify it’s protocol for dealing with obvious
and potential conflicts of interest of Commission members, special
advisors, or staff:

“[Commission
staffers] Kelly Donovan and John Amodeo are part of Attorney General
Schneiderman's senior staff... How then will they be handling
complaints against Attorney General Schneiderman and the Attorney
General's office for corrupting their duty to safeguard government
integrity and constitutional governance?”

Likewise, how
will Commission Special Advisor, outgoing
New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly handle the
complaints already submitted against corruption in his NYPD? How will
Chairman Milton Williams handle the numerous complaints against his
old friend Judge Lippman, who Williams’ “Fund For Modern Courts”
effectively put into power?

Moreover,
how would any of Commissioners, as “Deputy Attorney Generals”,
handle complaints against the man who convened the Commission in the
first place, Governor Cuomo? The fact that the Commissioners are
being asked to investigate their friends, colleagues, employers (and
potentially themselves) is the very situation for which conflict of
interest rules and laws exist.

Whatever
the Commission's protocol may be, it is certainly bound by NY Public
Officer's law §74 and by Executive Order 106. Any commissioner who
is presented with evidence implicating his friend, colleague or
employer, must
disclose
that potential conflict of interest and recuse himself from any
investigation regarding anyone or any matter with which he has a
potential conflict of interest. But that would require every member
of the commission to recuse themselves regarding complaints against
Schneiderman or Cuomo.

Simpler
Solution: Alter the Transcript?

Might
a simpler solution, and the one the Commission appears to have
chosen, be
to illegally alter the
names on the transcript,
so that friends and colleagues are no longer even mentioned
in the record? Then, any favored officials or institution’s
names would be invisible in an electronic search of the transcript,
and technically stricken from the official record. How can the
Commission be expected to investigate allegations against Chief Judge
Jonathan “Littman” or Administrative Judge Anne “Fow”, when
no such people exist? How can they pursue a complaint by the
mysterious “Will Galveston”, who also does not exist?

The
Commission Must Act on Every
Crime of Which it Obtains EvidenceAccording
to ¶ IV of Executive
Order 106:
“If
in the course of its inquiry the Commission obtains evidence of a
violation of existing laws, such evidence shall promptly be
communicated to the Office of the Attorney General and other
appropriate law enforcement authorities, and the Commission shall
take steps to facilitate jurisdictional referrals where appropriate.”
In
other words, the Commission is mandated by law to investigate
violations of law by anyone;
including their friends, colleagues, employers and fellow
commissioners.

Of
course, the Commission did
indeed obtain
evidence of violations of existing laws by Chief Judge Lippman, and
various judges and attorneys with connections to the commissioners,
but in violation of ¶IV,
they have failed to communicate such evidence to the appropriate
authorities.If
indeed the transcript was deliberately altered, it would appear a
member or some members of the Commission expunged the names of people
against whom criminal allegations had been brought, through
intentional misspellings and omissions. Rather,
they appear to have expunged these alleged criminals' names from the
record through intentional misspellings and omissions.

In
fact, the Moreland Commission appears
to have
violated ¶IV in regard to evidence against one of its own members.
In his testimony
at the September 24th hearing in Albany. Veteran Assistant
District
Attorney
Mark Sacha made allegations and cited evidence of criminal acts and
corruption by Moreland Commissioner Frank Sedita III. Mr. Sasha was
fired after serving as an
ADA
for
25
years, because, he alleges, he exposed involvement in egregious
campaign corruption by Sedita.

According
to Mr. Sacha, not only was his September 24th
testimony completely ignored; his8-
page follow up letter to the Commission, which details and
documents his complaint, has also gone unanswered and unacknowledged
for nearly two months. And ominously, it was immediately after Mr.
Sasha's testimony that the Commission banned testimony from
non-invited guests entirely and permanently.

Corruption
in the Moreland Commission: A Triple Crime?

If,
as Governor Cuomo stated, official corruption is a “double crime”,
then corruption within a commission created for the sole purpose of
fighting public corruption would constitute a “triple crime”.;
the underlying crime, the betrayal of the public trust, and
ultimately, the mechanism by which public corruption may be
perpetuated and proliferated. If some members of the Moreland
Commission have violated its mandate, the people's trust and the law
by altering the transcript, they must be held to account to the full
extent of the law. Otherwise, the Commission's lofty motto,
“Restoring Trust In Government” will backfire in the extreme.

Epilogue:

-
Over
the past three months, The Blackstar News has
reached out to the Moreland Commission on numerous occasions,
requesting responses to the questions raised in this article. Simple
“yes or no” answers to our questions could have put to rest any
appearance of impropriety by the Commission, but as of this printing,
the Moreland Commission has refused to reply to or acknowledge our
correspondence.

-
On December 4th, 2013, Commissioner Joan Mahonie stated in
an interview: "I think [the Moreland Commission} is making a mockery of this whole process if we try to pretend that a group of us that's been appointed by the attorney general and the governor is investigating the attorney general or the governor." As noted above, Commissioner Mahonie's confession is in utter contradiction to the mandate of the Commission, and if true, means that the Commission is intentionally and maliciously breaking the law. Over the weeks following her statement, Ms. Mahonie has refused to answer any press inquiries about what she said.

--The Commission has refused to correct or even
acknowledge the “errors” in the official transcript, despite
correspondence enumerating these inaccuracies and requesting their correction.

-The “official
record” presented to the Governor and the Attorney General is the
wildly inaccurate and illegally altered transcript.

-The
entirety of the written testimony of the public witnesses is still
being suppressed by the Commission, in violation of Commission rules.

-Not one witness that testified has been notified by the
Commission to follow up on their allegations and evidence of public
corruption.

-The
Commission continues to ignore all inquiries by witnesses and media
regarding its protocol for dealing with conflicts of interest.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Because this blog exposes crimes by the Moreland Commission (and Governor Cuomo, who has assumed responsibility for the actions of "his commission") that no other news venue will touch, I take the opportunity to leave comments on articles that discuss the Moreland Commission and its investigation.

My comments are always factual, polite and pertinent to the article at hand. They often simply provide a link to this blog.

Nevertheless, some news venues censor my comments, apparently because they do not want their readers to have access to the information this blog provides. It may be assumed that these venues are threatened by the information on this blog, because it runs counter to their political agenda.

I believe that this censorship is a grave disservice to to these venues' readers, and a gross perversion of their mandate.

On this page, I will list the venues who censor my posts, by posting screen shots of my comments before they were removed:

Consider this a hall of shame for New York Media. THE GREENFIELD REPORTERCensored two comments: 8/17/2014

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Co-Chairs:

Kathleen Rice became the Nassau County District Attorney in 2006. Prior to becoming the first woman in Long Island’s history to be elected district attorney, Rice served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Philadelphia. Rice began her career as a prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted cases of domestic violence, sexual assault and armed robbery, and later, murder cases. D.A. Rice is a graduate of the Catholic University of America and Touro Law School.

William J. Fitzpatrick has served as Onondaga County’s District Attorney for the past 28 years. Prior to serving as D.A., he was a defense attorney. In 2007 D.A. Fitzpatrick was appointed as the New York State representative to the National District Attorney’s Association, and he was elected Secretary in 2011. In 2010, New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman appointed D.A. Fitzpatrick to the New York State Permanent Sentencing Commission. He is a graduate of Syracuse University and Syracuse University Law School.

Milton L. Williams, Jr. joined the firm of Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard as a partner in January 2009. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Williams was a Deputy General Counsel and the Chief Compliance Officer at Time Inc. Before working at Time, Mr. Williams was in private practice, and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. His last assigned unit in the United States Attorney’s Office was the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Prior to becoming a federal prosecutor, Mr. Williams was an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office. Milt has tried over fifty cases (both civil and criminal) to verdict. He is a graduate of Amherst College and the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor.

Commission Members:

J. Patrick Barrett has been Chief Executive Officer of CARPAT Investments since 1987. He has previously served as President of Telergy, Inc. and Chief Executive Officer of Avis, Inc. Earlier in his business career, he served as an Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Norton Simon, Inc. Mr. Barrett assumed the Norton Simon post after a long career at Carrier Corporation, where he served in various positions, starting as Assistant Treasurer in 1964 and rising to President of Carrier International Corporation in 1977. In 1989, he was elected Chairman of the New York Republican State Committee, a post he held until 1991. He currently serves as the Chairman of the Board at the Olympic Regional Development Authority. Mr. Barrett is a graduate of Siena College.

Richard Briffault is the Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School. His primary areas of teaching, research and writing are state and local government law and the law of the political process. Prior to joining the Columbia faculty in 1983, he was an Assistant Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York. He has served as the executive director of the Special Commission on Campaign Finance Reform of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, as well as a consultant to the New York City Charter Revision Commission and the New York State Commission on Constitutional Revisions. Professor Briffault attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

Daniel J. Castleman is a senior managing director in the Forensic and Litigation Consulting practice at FTI Consulting and is based in New York. Prior to joining FTI Consulting, Mr. Castleman spent nearly 30 years at the New York County District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Castleman started his career there in 1979 as an appellate and street crime prosecutor. He then became a Senior Investigative Counsel in the Rackets Bureau handling political corruption and organized crime cases. After three years, Mr. Castleman became the Chief of the Rackets Bureau in 1990. In 1993, Mr. Castleman was promoted to Chief of the Investigation Division. Mr. Castleman then became Chief Assistant District Attorney in 2008. Mr. Castleman is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Columbia Law School.

Derek P. Champagne became District Attorney of Franklin County in 2002. Prior to serving as District Attorney, D.A. Champagne was a United States Customs Officer, served as the Village Attorney in Malone, New York, and was an Assistant District Attorney and later the Chief A.D.A. for Franklin County. He currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of the New York State District Attorney’s Association, as Vice-Chair of New York State Sentencing Commission, as a member of the New York State Justice Taskforce and also as a member of the Chief Judge’s Advisory Committee on Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law. He previously served as the President of the New York State District Attorney’s Association. D.A. Champagne is a graduate of St. Bonaventure University and Franklin Pierce Law School at the University of New Hampshire.

Eric Corngold leads the white-collar criminal defense and investigations practice of the law firm Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman, LLP. As New York State’s Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice from 2007 to 2009, Mr. Corngold was the principal advisor to the New York Attorney General on litigation and policy concerning financial markets, antitrust matters, corporate and consumer fraud and housing. Prior to his time in the AG’s office, Mr. Corngold was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York for more than a decade, ultimately serving as Chief of the Criminal Division. Mr. Corngold is currently an adjunct Professor of Law at St. John’s University School of Law, where he teaches a course on white collar crime. Mr. Corngold is a graduate of Swarthmore College and Yale Law School.

Kathleen B. Hogan has served as the Warren County District Attorney since 2002 and is the first woman to hold the position. Earlier in her career, D.A. Hogan worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn, and in private practice at Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, and Firth, P.C. D.A. Hogan has served on Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman’s Justice Task Force, the Sentencing Commission and the Children’s Justice Task Force. She served as president of the New York State District Attorneys Association from 2009 to 2010. D.A. Hogan attended St. Lawrence University and the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Nancy Hoppock is the Executive Director of the NYU Center on the Administration of Criminal Law. Before joining NYU, Ms. Hoppock served as the Executive Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice at the New York Attorney General’s Office supervising the Public Integrity Bureau, the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau, the Organized Crime Task Force, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, the Taxpayer Protection Unit, and the Investigations Division. Prior to joining the Attorney General’s Office, Ms. Hoppock served as an Assistant United States Attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey from 2001 to 2010. During her tenure at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Ms. Hoppock was promoted to supervise the Government Fraud Unit, then became a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, and later the Chief of the Criminal Division. Ms. Hoppock started her career at the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where she spent seven years as an Assistant District Attorney in the trial division. She received her B.A. from the University of Delaware and her law degree from Seton Hall Law School.

Seymour W. James, Jr., is the Attorney-in-Charge of the criminal practice of The Legal Aid Society in New York City. Mr. James recently completed his term as President of the New York State Bar Association. Active in the State Bar since 1978, Mr. James served as treasurer from 2008 to 2011. He is also a fellow of the New York Bar Foundation and a member of the board of directors of the New York State Defenders Association. Mr. James is a past president of the Queens County Bar Association. In addition to his bar association activities, Mr. James is a member of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman’s Justice Task Force, the New York State Permanent Sentencing Commission, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, the Committee on Character and Fitness for the Second Judicial Department and the Independent Judicial Election Qualification Commission for the Second Judicial Department. He also serves as the secretary of the Correctional Association. Mr. James is a graduate of Brown University and Boston University School of Law.

David Javdan is a Managing Director with Alvarez & Marsal. Prior to joining Alvarez & Marsal, Mr. Javdan was General Counsel of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Mr. Javdan has served as a member of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, which reviews and proposes changes to federal procurement laws. He was also a member of the board of directors of the New York State Banking Department, and previously he served as Special Counsel to the New York State Senate on Holocaust and Health Care issues. Before joining the U.S. Small Business Administration, Mr. Javdan was an attorney with the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Mr. Javdan is a graduate of Columbia University and Fordham Law School.

Robert Johnson has been the District Attorney of Bronx County since 1989. He is the first African-American District Attorney in the history of New York State, and, in 2005, became the longest-serving District Attorney in Bronx history. He began his career as a criminal defense attorney for the Legal Aid Society, and later became a Bronx Assistant District Attorney. He has also served as a Judge of the New York City Criminal Court, and as an Acting Justice of the New York State Supreme Court. D.A. Johnson, a United States Navy Veteran, is past President of the New York State District Attorneys Association and a present member of the Board of Directors of that organization. He graduated from the City College of New York and New York University School of Law.

David R. Jones is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that promotes economic advancement and full civic participation for low-income New Yorkers. From 1983 to 1986, he served as Executive Director of the New York City Youth Bureau, and from 1979 to 1983, was Special Advisor to Mayor Koch with responsibilities in race relations, urban development, immigration reform, and education. He has served on several boards, including serving as Chairman of the Board of the Nation Institute, Chairman of the Board of Carver Federal Savings Bank and a former Chair of the Advisory Board of New York City’s Independent Budget Office. He served for 12 years on the board of trustees of Wesleyan University and is now a Trustee Emeritus. Prior to his nonprofit and public service careers, Mr. Jones was an attorney at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. He is a graduate of Wesleyan University and Yale Law School.

Lance Liebman is the William S. Beinecke Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the current Director of the American Law Institute. After serving as a Law Clerk to Justice Byron White of the United States Supreme Court, he spent two years working on transportation and community issues as an assistant to then-New York City Mayor John V. Lindsay. He joined the faculty of Harvard Law School in 1970 and remained there for 21 years, becoming a full professor in 1976 and serving as Associate Dean from 1981 to 1984. In 1991 he moved to Columbia as the dean of the law school and as the Lucy G. Moses Professor of Law. Professor Liebman graduated from Yale University and Harvard Law School.

Joanne M. Mahoney was elected in November 2007 as the first woman County Executive for Onondaga County. After spending time in private law practice early in her career, County Executive Mahoney accepted a position with the Onondaga County District Attorney’s Office and spent five years there as a criminal prosecutor. In 1999, she was elected Councilor-at-Large in the City of Syracuse where she served a four year term. County Executive Mahoney lives in Dewitt. She graduated from Syracuse University’s School of Management and SU’s College of Law.

Gerald F. Mollen has served as the Broome County District Attorney since 1987, after having served as an Assistant District Attorney in Broome County since 1980. Prior to 1980, D.A. Mollen worked as an Assistant County Attorney and an Assistant Attorney General. As District Attorney, D.A. Mollen helped to establish a Multidisciplinary Child Abuse Review Team, the Broome County Gang Task Force and, in 2001, the Broome County Gang Prevention Program, and instituted protocols for start-to-finish recording of suspect interviews by police in major felony cases. D.A. Mollen attended Binghamton University and George Washington University Law School.

Makau W. Mutua is the Dean of SUNY Buffalo Law School, as well as a SUNY Distinguished Professor and the Floyd H. and Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar at SUNY Buffalo Law School. He teaches international human rights, international business transactions and international law. Dean Mutua is a Vice President of the American Society of International Law and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2002 to 2003, Dean Mutua chaired the Task Force on the Establishment of a Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission, which recommended a truth commission for Kenya. He is the author of several books, and he has conducted numerous human rights, diplomatic and rule of law missions to countries in Africa, Latin America and Europe. Prior to joining the faculty at SUNY Buffalo Law School, Dean Mutua worked at Human Rights First, the Harvard Law School Human Rights Program, and in private practice. Born in Kenya, Mutua attended the University of Nairobi, the University of Dar es Salaam, and Harvard Law School.

Benito Romano is currently a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. For twenty years, he was a partner and the leader of the white collar defense practice group at Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Mr. Romano previously served as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Prior to being named U.S. Attorney in 1989, Mr. Romano was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and served as Chief of Public Corruption and Chief Appellate Attorney. Mr. Romano has also served on the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, including as Acting Chair, on the 1998 Charter Revision Commission, and as a member and former chair of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. He is currently chair of the New York State Interest on Lawyer Account Fund. He attended New York University and Columbia University Law School.

Frank A. Sedita III became District Attorney of Erie County in November 2008. Prior to becoming D.A. he served as an Assistant District Attorney and as a Deputy District Attorney in Erie County. D.A. Sedita is a member of the adjunct faculty at SUNY Buffalo Law School and also teaches at the National College of District Attorneys, the New York Prosecutors Training Institute and the Erie County District Attorney’s Office Continuing Legal Education Program. He is a lecturer and instructor for prosecution agencies throughout the United States. D.A. Sedita graduated from Canisius College and SUNY Buffalo Law School.

P. David Soares has served as the Albany County District Attorney since 2005. Prior to serving as District Attorney, he was an Assistant District Attorney in Albany County, and Albany County’s first Community Prosecutor. During his tenure, D.A. Soares has created Public Integrity and Financial Crime Units within the office. D.A. Soares is a graduate of Cornell University and Albany Law School.

Kristy Sprague has served as the Essex County District Attorney since 2009. Prior to serving as the D.A., she was an Assistant District Attorney in Clinton County. D.A. Sprague is a graduate of SUNY Albany, Plattsburgh State, and Albany Law School.

Betty Weinberg Ellerin is currently a senior counsel at the law firm Alston & Bird, LLP. Prior to joining Alston, Justice Weinberg Ellerin served for more than twenty years as a judge. During that time, she served as Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts and as Associate Justice and Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, First Department. Justice Weinberg Ellerin attended Washington Square College and New York University School of Law.

Peter L. Zimroth is a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP, where he focuses on products liability, commercial, securities, and white collar crime matters. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Zimroth was Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. He was the architect of the City’s law providing for the public financing of elections, a law which has become the model for local legislation around the country. Earlier in his career, Mr. Zimroth served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Securities Fraud Unit, and as the Chief Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan. Mr. Zimroth was a tenured professor at the New York University School of Law and a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. He is a graduate of Columbia University and Yale Law School.

Thomas P. Zugibe was elected Rockland County District Attorney in 2007, and re-elected to a four year term in 2011. Earlier in his career, D.A. Zugibe worked as a Special Assistant Attorney General in the Office of the New York State Deputy Attorney General for Medicaid Fraud Control and as an Assistant District Attorney and Executive Assistant District Attorney in the Rockland County D.A.’s office. He also worked for two decades in private practice, concentrating on personal injury and commercial litigation. D.A. Zugibe attended Manhattan College and St. John’s University School of Law.

Special Advisors:

Joseph A. D’Amico is the Superintendent of the New York State Police. Prior to his confirmation as Superintendent, Superintendent D’Amico served as Chief Investigator for the Office of the New York State Attorney General, where he oversaw and coordinated the efforts of 300 criminal and civil investigators statewide. Prior to that, Superintendent D’Amico had a twenty-seven year career with the New York City Police Department, where he served in many patrol and investigative assignments in the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens, ultimately rising to the rank of Deputy Chief. He is a graduate of the State University of New York.

Raymond W. Kelly has served as Police Commissioner of the City of New York since 2002. Commissioner Kelly was formerly Senior Managing Director of Global Corporate Security at Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. Before that, he served as Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service. From 1996 to 1998, Commissioner Kelly was Under Secretary for Enforcement at the U.S. Treasury Department. In addition, Mr. Kelly served on the executive committee and was elected Vice President for the Americas of Interpol, the international police organization, from 1996 to 2000. In 1994, he was appointed to serve as Director of the International Police Monitors in Haiti. He is a forty-three year veteran of the NYPD. Commissioner Kelly graduated from Manhattan College, St. John’s University School of Law and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Robert M. Morgenthau will serve as Special Counsel to the Commission. Mr. Morgenthau was the District Attorney for New York County from 1975 to 2009. In his nine terms in office, his staff conducted approximately 3.5 million criminal prosecutions, and reduced homicides in Manhattan by over 90%. In addition, Mr. Morgenthau was known as a national leader in the prosecution of white collar crime. Prior to serving as D.A., Mr. Morgenthau, a United States Navy veteran, was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and worked in private practice. He attended Amherst College and Yale Law School.

Barbara Bartoletti has been the Legislative Director for the League of Women Voters of New York since 1988, and a member of the League of Women Voters since 1978.